This question asks for the identification of various media theorists’ models that discuss the culture and society that are present in low, mass and popular culture. There needs to be a comparison between these different models, looking at their similarities and differences, in order to establish whether their opinions are for or against these cultures. The question also asks to discuss the relevance of these models to society and whether these models’ differing opinions can agree and exist together or will there always be this argument as to what is right and what isn’t when it comes to these cultures.
This question is a way of identifying whether the theorists’ models and their differing opinions on these cultures are able to live in harmony, or will there always be an on-going argument in regards to low, mass and popular culture.
I will identify how these cultures are defined in terms of who are the audiences, how they are associated with different socio-economic classes, what do they provide for society and what type of media is created as part of the culture. I will do this by looking at different readings that discuss the models that support these cultures and those who have criticised them.
I have looked at three main readings that discuss these issues in differing ways: Strinati’s ‘Introduction to theories of popular culture’, Gans’ ‘Popular culture and high culture’ and Storey’s ‘Cultural theory and popular culture’.
The key theorists and authors in these readings are Matthew Arnold; known to have began the ‘popular culture’ debate in the 18th century. MacDonald – who is referenced in Strinati and Gans’ readings. He argues that mass culture is having negative effects on society and other elite cultures. Similarly, F.R. and Q.D. Leavis are often referenced, debating the negative effects of mass/popular culture. Whereas Gans believes that all cultures should be seen as equal, as he discusses popular culture and how there is this controversy that it isn’t a ‘real culture’.
Another key theorist is Adorno, who is referenced by Strinati when discussing mass culture, its effect on society and its association with popular culture.
From these readings I will discuss some of the theories that lie behind these cultures, looking at the argument as to whether these cultures should be classed as legitimate or whether they are created to manipulate society to buy into the mass production. I will look at some of the debates, how these cultures emerged to become what they are/were and if it’s still relevant. The main argument of this essay is whether the theorists and their models are able to be reconciled, in terms of their differing opinions, which I will discuss throughout.
Until the 18th Century, culture was dominated by the elite, the ‘aristocracy had kept all that was best in culture for itself’ (Mullan, 2000). This culture was for the higher classes and the intellectuals and was created as a leisurely activity to view art or attend opera’s and performances and was seen as ‘popular’ at this time. Whereas the lower classes were not part of this, as they didn’t have the finances to attend such things, and were looked down on by the higher classes as people not to be associated with. However, once cultures began to develop to become available to a wider range of people there was need ‘to distinguish between high and low entertainments’ (Mullan, 2000), with hostility being shown to what was classed as ‘low’ because of the socio-economic classes associated with ‘culture’.
It is said that ‘the study of popular culture in the modern age…begins with… Matthew Arnold’ (Storey, 2009 p.18), which he called ‘anarchy’ referring to the ‘supposedly disruptive nature of working-class lived culture’ (Storey, 2009 p.19). Arnold’s argument (Storey, 2009) was political, in the fact that he stated that the working-class was a threat to the middle class and aristocracy because of the 19th century industrialisation and urbanisation of the towns and cities. He believed that ‘education is the road to culture’ (Arnold, 1869 quoted in Storey, 2009 p.20) as a way of civilizing the working-class, so that they could ‘be instructed’ by the higher classes instead of being able to do what they want and create a ‘social and cultural decline’.
Similarly to Arnold’s argument, the Leavisites discussed how popular culture was leading the ‘cultural crisis of the 1930s’ (Storey, 2009 p.22), believing that this ‘cultural decline’ was still being seen in the 20th Century. Critics of popular culture have and still argue that the culture of the higher classes/the educated is being overpowered by the culture created for the masses as they don’t take authority from the elite like they used to.
The Leavisities argument focused mostly on literature and education and how ‘the canons of literature (were) being reversed with success by a popular vote’ (Q.D. Leavis cited in Storey, 2009 p.23). Critics believed that this culture was ‘dumbing down’ society as ‘a reader who spends his leisure in cinemas, looking through magazines and newspapers… prevents him from normal development… whereas the 18th/19th century helped the reader, the twentieth century hinders’ (Q.D. Leavis, 1932 quoted in Strinati, 2004 p.15).
A similar argument that cultural critic Macdonald made, suggested that the ‘intellectual community (would be unable) to sustain itself’ (Strinati, 2004 p.17), a pessimistic view that suggests that all cultures can’t live in harmony if popular/mass culture exists as there would be no room for the lesser known cultures because the majority are classed as part of ‘popular culture’.
In comparison with this are those who believe that all cultures are able to co-exist. For example, Gans (1999) defended popular culture from its critics who believe that ‘only high culture is a culture, and that popular culture is a dangerous mass phenomenon’ (p.11), stating that all cultures should be classed as cultures because everyone in society have the right to choose to be a part of whatever culture they want.
However, as society is constantly changing in every way, so do the cultures, as they adapt to this change. For example, the term ‘low culture’ according to Gans is a ‘taste culture’, which is made up of those who share similarities: the ‘major source of differentiation…(being) socioeconomic level or class’ (Gans, 1999 p.95). Low culture is associated with the ‘lower-middle class… the people who obtained non-academic high school educations… and was America’s dominant taste culture until the 1950s’ (Gans, 1999 p.115). However, low culture of this definition has been in decline, for the most part because the type of society that it is associated with has become less and less present throughout the years ‘partly because of longer school attendance… but also because of the exposure to television and other lower-middle mass media’ (Gans, 1999 p.115).
The content that is created for low culture is made to relate to the working class, as it ‘depicts how traditional working-class values win out over the temptation to give in to conflicting impulses’ (Gans, 1999 p.116). In regards to male and female audience, the content is often separated in order to relate to the audience of the 1950s who would ‘sharply differentiate… male and female roles’ (Gans, 1999 p.116). This is another reason as to why this type of low culture has been in decline, as these differentiations between genders are being rejected and a more equal view is seen, in the media and in society.
Gans provides Western films as an example of the type of media that was created for a low culture male; the hero ‘expresses important working-class behavioural norms… works either alone or with “buddies” of the same sex’ (1999 p.117). The actors who played these characters were always extremely popular and classed as ‘stars’. However, this kind of popularity isn’t often seen with action film actors today, which Gans states is ‘indicative of low culture’s loss of dominance’ (1999 p.117).
Theodor Adorno – a German philosopher ‘attacked what he called the “culture industry”’ (The Guardian, 2000), a theory that was developed in 1930s-40s. Adorno believed that mass production was manipulating society into consuming certain products, describing mass culture and the films and radio produced as ‘nothing but business (which) is used as an ideology to legitimize the trash they intentionally produce’ (Horkheimer and Adorno, 2002 p.95).
Strinati states that Adorno’s work is often used as a ‘prime example of the target at which (elitist criticisms of popular culture) are directed’ (2004 p.46).
This and mass culture theory are what have led to the on-going debates and analysis seen today.
Differently to the critics of the 18th/19th century whose views were political, the 20th century began to see a turn in the criticism, as theorists began to debate the issue of popular/mass culture’s manipulation of society and its destruction, suggesting that the masses are unaware that there is a small group of creators controlling the majority into buying into this profit making culture that has no real value. However, this isn’t always the case, as many popular culture creators are a part of the upper-middle class and want to create something of meaning, as Gans (1999) found when interviewing writers of a popular television show, that ‘they were always trying to insert their own values into their writing, particularly to make a moral point’ (p.34). However, it sometimes isn’t possible as creators of popular produce are employees of a business and are told what to produce in order to reach the biggest audience, which is why the contents are often seen as ‘dumbed down’ or of no value. Whereas produce created for the higher classes are often created by people in the same class and ‘creator-audience gap is much smaller’ (Gans, 1999 p.36), making it possible to create things that have more meaning to the creator, which mass culture critics ‘argue… differences of perspective between creators and users should not exist’ (p.36).
Mass culture – another definition of popular culture, refers to how a culture gets produced, ‘it is a set of ideas and values that develop from a common exposure to the same media, news sources, music and art’ (sociology index, 2002). It is assumed that ‘the masses bear some responsibility for the culture they consume… determined by the preferences of the masses themselves’ (Strinati, 2004 p.56).
In 1975 Adorno went back to look at the ‘culture industry’ theory and was found to still agree with what he had previously argued. Unlike the mass culture assumption, Adorno believed that the culture is ‘something which is imposed upon the masses (in a way that) they do not realise it is an imposition’ (1975, cited in Strinati, 2004 p.56). Similarly, MacDonald believed that mass culture is a ‘homogenized culture… breaking down the old barriers of class, tradition… dissolving cultural distinctions’ (1957, quoted in Strinati, 2004 p.15).
This is an often-common debate associated with mass culture, seen by many critical theorists as a culture created to sell to a mass audience, but in a negative way. There is nothing new or original about the contents being developed because it is made to ‘appeal to everyone since… every atomised person, is open to manipulation’ (Strinati, 2004 p.11), meaning there is no worth to the production because it is only there to make a profit out of society.
The mass culture theory (Strinati, 2004) argues that when a society is organised into a mass they aren’t actually seen as individuals but as one large group, which critics argue makes this culture ‘standardised, formulaic and repetitive’ (p.12).
The mass culture theory also states ‘if culture can’t make money then it is unlikely to be produced’ (Strinati, 2004 p.10), which is what critics such as MacDonald and Q.D. Leavis argue is causing a risk to cultures that are the opposite, like high culture that challenges the audience into thinking intellectually, but isn’t mass produced.
To conclude, low/mass/popular culture has had constant criticism from the beginning, when it was first present in the 18th century and known as ‘anarchy’ up until today. A big part of this criticism is to do with the society that lies behind these cultures and the political aspect of the high/low classes. In order for there to be reconciliation between those who are for and those who criticise these cultures, there needs to be a clear understanding that all cultures can co-exist together, even if popular culture is seen as a culture for the masses there is still ability for other cultures to exist, as Gans (1999) states; everyone has the right to choose to be a part of the culture that they want. The political way of thinking that the lower classes should be controlled by the higher classes, as Arnold and the Leavisities believed is becoming very out-dated and doesn’t apply to today’s society so much as it did in the 18th and early 19th centuries. However, popular culture’s critics today often focus on the ‘mass’ aspect and its manipulation of mass society, a view that believes that society is easily manipulated into being a part of a culture that is ‘dumbing’ down everything in order to make a profit, unlike cultures that are trying to educate (high culture) and aren’t mass produced. However, everything that is produced for a culture is there to make money, even if it is an art piece or a blockbuster film, the cultures are personal preferences of the type of entertainment and pass times a person enjoys.